kelownabomberfan

I wonder what Darren Sproles would have done as a player if he had played during that time period.

I was watching the Carolina/New Orleans game today and Delvin Breaux made an interception. Joe Buck, the Fox announcer, gave a back-story on Breaux, including his spinal issues and his recovery, then he said something like "he couldn't get a look in the NFL, and was forced to go play semi-pro ball in the CFL". I of course reacted negatively to that comment with some four letter expletives hurled at the TV as I took Buck's comment as an arrogant insult from an American bozo (kind of like that other Fox clown that was doing the baseball and insulted Canada), but then I reflected on this statement. Is the CFL a true "professional" league, or is it "semi-pro" - and I honestly don't even know what "semi-pro" means. If you get paid to play a sport, and fans show up and pay to watch you play it, then you are a professional player. Right? Opinions?

LOL - yeah if you want to stop a party of liberal elitists cold just say "Al Gore is an idiot and David Suzuki is a fraud and anyone who joins the man-made climate change cult is a freaking moron". You'll hear a record scratch, and everything stops dead. Then be prepared to be assaulted with all of the usual bullshit, especially the 97% consensus lie. It is actually hilarious to watch the reaction, as with a lot of these people, the AGW fraud is a religion to them.

See I agree with what you wrote above, but in the total opposite way. I think that it is a cussing travesty that a website like Skeptical Science can completely manufacture the lie that there is a "general consensus" and that gullible people will just believe this and parrot it, because it is in tune with their confirmation bias. I think that what has just as catastrophic consequences for mankind is the supposed "cures" to this supposed "problem", and using "big oil" as an excuse is just a pure straw man. I think the people that have caused taxpayers in almost every country in the Western world to waste billions on useless wind and solar "green" energy solutions should be considered criminals. Look at Ontario. $37 billion wasted in the last 8 years, and yet here you are, saying that people who call this waste into question are the criminals. Think a bit here. Stop believing the lies and being a sheeple yourself. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

I think this kind of crap is only going to get worse, as the main goal of the cultists in this AGW religion is a completely government-controlled economy as was the case under communism. All energy sources will be controlled by the state, and we will be told that it must be done to "save the earth", even though it is a giant load of crap. Suzuki started this nonsense when he called on "deniers" to be jailed, and now with his idiotic comparison of oil companies to slave owners. That guy definitely has dementia.

Thanks to brainless energy policy and rush into horribly expensive wind and solar power by the Liberals in Ontario, Ontarians have paid $37 billion more for electricity then they needed to in the past eight years. Just unbelievable, the waste and gross negligence of the government of Ontario in implementing these terrible policies. Shame! http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/12/02/ontario-consumers-likely-paying-billions-extra-for-hydro-one-decisions-auditor-general.html

Conrad Black weighs in on the Paris Man-Made Climate Change fairy-tale conference: Conrad Black: The great climate conference charade playing out in Paris December 5, 2015 The opening of the Paris conference on climate change will be the occasion for the customary lamentations about the imminent demise of life on Earth if we do not pull up our socks as a species and reduce carbon emission levels, and thus avoid the toasting of the world. The adduced scientific evidence does not justify any such state of alarm. Every sane and informed person in the world is concerned about pollution and demands vigilance about any clear trends of climate change and any convincing evidence that human behaviour influences the climate. Because the Copenhagen climate Conference of 2009 had promised agreement on imposition of dramatic measures to reduce fossil fuel use and resulting carbon emissions, thus avoiding apprehended rises in world temperature, and broke up in acrimonious farce and recrimination, the Paris conference has been more carefully and less ambitiously prepared. Smyth: Canada sent 383 people to the UN climate conference, more than Australia, the U.K. and U.S. together The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded. The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab. Don’t nitpick over the newly bloated number, as it’s understandable some jet-setting bureaucrats may have been initially overlooked during such a busy travel period. If you’ve ever seen the classic Christmas film “Home Alone” you’ll know how easy it is to get the head count wrong during a mad dash to Paris. “Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases. At Copenhagen, the demand arose from developing countries that the economically advanced countries had permanently impaired the under-developed countries and that the $100 billion compensation fund that Obama had promised to raise for the less-advanced countries was completely inadequate, mere reparations instead of a serious response to a moral debt that could only be quantified in trillions of dollars. (Obama had no takers, including his own Congress, when his Democrats controlled it, for one cent of such payments.) Obama was unable even to get an interview with the Chinese prime minister, a historic first in lack of access for a U.S. president, as the Chinese, by far the greatest carbon emitter and polluter of all countries, cheekily set themselves at the head of the G-77 countries who with cupped hands and in stentorian voice, demanded immense monetary compensation for the sins of the carbon emitters, also led by themselves. The world’s temperature has risen approximately one half of a centigrade degree, or almost one fahrenheit degree, in 35 years. There has been minimal global warming for 18 years, though carbon emissions in the world have steadily increased throughout that period. It is indisputable that the world has been warmer several times in its history than it is now, so whatever impact man may have on it, the world’s temperature is evidently subject to fluctuations for other reasons. There is also legitimate disagreement about the consequences of such warming as might occur. Recent research at the University of Sussex, widely recognized for its expertise in this field, indicates that warming up to 3.5 centigrade degrees from where we are now would have no appreciable impact on anything, except a positive impact where increased volumes of carbon dioxide increase arable area and make crops more drought-resistant. There has also been a good deal of reciprocally corroborating research in different countries by recognized experts that uniformly demonstrates that the world’s temperature is much less sensitive than had long been feared to increased carbon use. Antarctic polar ice is thickening and world water levels are not rising. Apocalyptic statements of imminent consequences of not reducing carbon use have been fairly thoroughly debunked. Not only is the evidence of the effects of increased carbon use unclear, but the economic consequences of discouragement of carbon use are very clear and very harmful to the most vulnerable countries. China and India, the two most populous countries and the first and third carbon emitters, are eagerly pursuing economic growth, which is the only method for pulling the many hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in those countries upwards out of poverty, and they are not going to change policy to accommodate the militant ecologists of the West. They don’t attach the slightest credence to the alarmist comments of the more strident ecologists, other than as an excuse for demanding monetary compensation for how the economically leading countries have disadvantaged them. The International Energy Agency estimates that the underdeveloped countries as a group, will emit 70 per cent of the carbon output of the world in the next 15 years, and will be responsible for all of the increase in carbon use over that time. President Obama has called the Paris conference a “historic turning point,” but it isn’t, and claimed (in February) that climate change was a greater problem than terrorism. He and John Kerry (secretary of state), have several times called it the world’s greatest problem. This is bunk. The pope stated that we are “at the edge of suicide.” If so, it is not for climatic reasons. (The Holy See has placated the greens, but emphasized that “The Church cannot take the place of scientists and politicians.”) Many in those groups are more impetuous in their assertions. And everyone seriously involved with the Paris conference knows that it is not really going to accomplish much. As Lord Ridley pointed out in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 28, the NGO spokespeople attending at Paris will scream like banshees of imminent disaster, for fear of having their budgets cut, despite contrary evidence and although it is now clear that decarbonization is much more harmful to the world than increased carbon emissions. Alternate sources of energy, such as wind and solar, are hideously more expensive and much less productive, a luxury no country can really afford, and certainly not the poorer countries. But the conference will be hamstrung. Countries will volunteer their own individual targets for reduction of carbon emissions, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDC’s. The INDC of China only predicts that such emissions will meet their peak by 2030, while, for all his militancy, President Obama’s U.S. INDC will be a reduction of 26-28 per cent in 10 years, yet the outline of hoped-for gains, which the Congress will not endorse, and for years Obama will only see as a private citizen, only calls for half the volume reduction of emissions necessary to meet his pledge. The American INDC is a scam. Even the Obama administration is demanding an involuntary international verification mechanism (much more rigorous than what it settled for in the rather more urgent matter of Iranian nuclear military development), and the elimination of the so-called “firewall” of separate arrangements for the developed and under-developed (or developing) countries. The developing countries, led by China and India, refuse, unless they are solemnly promised a $100 billion a year climate fund, as Obama imprudently pledged at Copenhagen. This remains completely out of the question and furnished the justification in advance for the developing countries to fall short of their INDC targets, which will provide the cover for the developed countries to do the same. Everyone will solemnly announce ambitious INDCs, but there will be no verification, ample excuse for non-compliance for everyone and this charade will continue to the next portentous and verbose conference. Meanwhile, the many thousands of non-paying delegates will enjoy the delights of Paris. Whatever Canada does is irrelevant to the world, as it is not a serious offender and only provides about 2.3 per cent of the world’s economic activity and less than one per cent of anticipated increases in carbon emissions over the next 15 years, in a total that there is no evidence will have any negative repercussions anyway. The new government has a very capable environment minister in Catherine McKenna, and doubtless she and Justin Trudeau will acquit themselves well, as long as they don’t really imagine that much will result from the Paris meeting. What seems to have happened is that the international far left, having been decisively routed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and of international communism, has attached itself to the environmental movement, usurped the leading positions in it from the bird-watching, butterfly-collecting, and conservation organizations, and is carrying on its anti-capitalist and anarchist crusade behind the cover of eco-Armageddonism. While this has been rather skilfully executed, many office-holders and aspirants, including Obama, have used dire environmental scenarios to distract their electorates from their own policy failures, much as Arab powers have long diluted anger at despotic misgovernment by harping on the red herring of Israel. On the subject of such things, Stephen Donziger, the much enriched champion of the Ecuadorian claimants against Chevron, whose antics I described here last week, has replied to me on his website entirely with a reference to my status as a person convicted of felonies. As readers know, I am proud to have been sent to prison for three years in the United States for crimes I would never have dreamed of committing, all of the charges of which were abandoned, rejected by jurors, or unanimously vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in respect of which I received by far the largest libel settlement in Canadian history from the original sponsors of the charges. Two charges were self-servingly retrieved by a lower court panel which the high court had excoriated but remanded the vacated counts to, for ”assessment of the gravity of its errors.” This spurious resurrection does not disguise the fraudulence of the prosecution, and the last words to me from the trial judge were “The court wishes you well, Mr. Black.” This is a considerable contrast with the assertion by federal judge Lewis Kaplan of Donziger, that he had committed a vast range of grievous crimes, including racketeering, money-laundering, perjury, obstruction of justice and practically unlimited corrupt acts in pursuit of “an egregious fraud” in Ecuador. To be described as I was by such an accuser is a distinct honour. National Post

Even Green MLA, Andrew Weaver, is calling this a big waste of tax payer's money. Not only that, but we have 800 tonnes of carbon dioxide produced, which is equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from 153 cars, almost 2 million miles driven, and 260 tons of garbage sent to the dump.

Michael Smyth: Canada’s massive Paris contingent almost outnumbers France The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded. The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab. Don’t nitpick over the newly bloated number, as it’s understandable some jet-setting bureaucrats may have been initially overlooked during such a busy travel period. If you’ve ever seen the classic Christmas film “Home Alone” you’ll know how easy it is to get the head count wrong during a mad dash to Paris. “Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases. Canada has sent more people to Paris than Australia (46), the U.K. (96), the U.S. (148), Russia (313) and almost as many as host-country France (396). Not a bad turnout for a country that emits just 1.6 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gases, eh? Or maybe it’s not something to admire when you consider how much polluting fossil fuel was burned to fly so many hundreds of people across the ocean to talk about burning less. Looking down the list of Canada’s participants in Paris, it’s hard not to conclude we’re vastly over-represented. Did we really need to send the deputy environment minister for the Northwest Territories? Theclimate-change youth ambassador for the Yukon? The leader of the New Brunswick Green Party? The interim leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his press secretary? The “security co-ordinator” for Hydro-Quebec? Many of these fine folks are so marginal to the climate-change file that calling them “bit players” would be a stretch. Premier Christy Clark is there, of course, though critics says she’s just taking credit for someone else’s work. (Former premier Gordon Campbell brought in B.C.’s groundbreaking carbon tax, which Clark promptly froze in 2012). But while Clark has been called a laggard on the climate-change issue, she’s no slouch when it comes toclimate-change photo-ops. Clark’s entourage includes her “official photographer” and her “events co-ordinator.” Hey, who could save the planet without them? Back home, meanwhile, Clark’s “Climate Leadership Team” just reported that the government will fail to meet its own greenhouse-gas reduction targets and called on Clark to double the carbon taxwithin five years. The government said it won’t do that unless “emission-intensive, trade-exposed” industries are“fully protected” from any tax hikes. That’s clearly meant as a reassuring signal to the big oil-and-gas companies Clark wants to lure to B.C. to build her promised liquefied natural-gas industry. But that’s all down the road. For now, it’s time for another climate-change photo-op in Paris. Mon Dieu, I shudder to think what it’s all costing taxpayers. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-smyth-canadas-massive-paris-contingent-almost-outnumbers-france&pubdate=2015-12-03

I know John A. Macdonald made the direct leap from raging alcoholic to PM. You would have to be an alcoholic to dream up the idea of this giant frozen land mass full of beavers and hosers one day being a country.

Well that's just silly.

The Toronto media thinks that "JVR" is on par with Patrick Kane or Tyler Seguin. They would demand Ladd, Buff, Schief and two first round draft picks in exchange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFpRAzlMrTM#t

On other sites I follow, all kinds of people were falling all over themselves admonishing and screaming at anyone who even hinted that Islamic extremists were behind this shooting, pulling the usual terms like "bigot" and "racist" out of their butts, and now it is hilarious watching them back-pedal, to the point you can hear their ankles snapping. Just unbelievable. Some people want to live in a dreamland, no matter what the costs.

Sigh, if that's all you have, my agreeing with a poster that I don't like to see the office of prime minister disrespected, then I concede I guess, but it's pretty weak sauce, and I think you got caught confusing me with TUP, and now are just back-peddling, which is fine, I would have been actually a lot more impressed if you had just admitted your mistake.. That wasn't my intention to say that no one is allowed to criticize the PM, as there is a huge difference between disrespect and legitimate criticism, something the Anti-Harper squad could never figure out or gave one whit about.. Especially in cases where the person occupying the position commits blatant hypocrisy, as was/is the case with Trudeau and his nannies. And that's not just my opinion, but Thomas Mulcair's as well. At any rate, I don't think that anyone should be shackled from stating that they disagree with something that the Prime Minister is doing, no matter what party is in power. I just don't like it when out of partisanship, blatant lies are manufactured and parroted, usually by special interest groups, be they Ezra Levant on Trudeau, or some "coalition" that blatantly lies about health care.policies of the Conservatives. I have found some of Ezra's attacks on Trudeau almost as repugnant as the lies told about Harper. What I found interesting was the lack of criticism coming from a lot of extremely vocal political pundits here. The excuse was given that it wasn't significant enough to comment on, which I think is a cop-out, but whatever. One thing I believe to be true, and that is that we have just seen the tip of the iceberg. What will be the breaking point for those who choose to remain mum? The Liberals have already broken their promise regarding the cap on the deficit. How big will it grow? And how long can they keep blaming the Conservatives (Ie how long will even the staunchest and willfully blind give them that slack?) We will see.

and speaking of Trudeau, his attendance at the Paris climate party wasn't a complete loss. I was heartened to see this tweet from him: Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau Nov 30 With PM @Netanyahu today. I look forward to continuing & strengthening the strong friendship between Canada & Israel I am glad to see that he respects our relationship with Israel. I would hate to see him flush that relationship down the toilet to appease the radical left who are so in love with Hamas and other Israel-hating terrorist groups.

Did anyone else see Trudeau and Rona Ambrose dragging the new speaker of the House to his chair today to mark the election of a new speaker, per old parliamentary traditions? I love those old traditions. Does anyone know how that tradition started? (I do, just asking if anyone else does). I also loved the fact that neither Harper or Mulcair were a part of the dragging ceremony. Talk about refreshing. And Rona sure looks better than Steve or Angry Tom!

As for singling me out, NO, I was not the one who was chastising and calling out people on these boards to stop being disrespectful. At least, I don't recall doing that. What I do recall saying was that Harper deserved to be scorned and I was fine with that, but what I didn't like was people deliberately inventing lies about Harper, and posting them here. That was wrong. So, you are wrong. As for the posts about Trudeau by me and others, so what you are saying is that no one is ever allowed to criticize him for anything, if they ever once defended Harper when people made allegations against him that were blatantly false. At least I think that is what you are saying. Is anyone lying about Justin here, like certain individuals were lying about Harper? Not that I can see. The facts here are the facts. And you are right, hypocrite does work here. And it works when describing Justin Trudeau.

I hope he did!

I'm not cranky, in fact I've been enjoying this whole nanny thing immensely. The first big scandal (it's not really that big, but what has made it so big is all of the Trudeau fan bois crying about how "mean-spirited" everyone is being, which is just laughable.given how "mean-spirited" they were towards the last government). where Trudeau shows he's an entitled hypocrite, and it's either silence from all of those so outraged by Conservative entitlement, or attacks on the messenger. Saying I'm the last person to call someone else a hypocrite is just hilarious, but a common technique I'm see Trudeau fan bois use on other sites. They just can't stand to see their leader being questioned. I can see why. Up until now, no one really has, and all of the negativity was absorbed by the Conservatives. JT has been teflon up until now. I wonder how angry the Trudeau fan bois are going to be when crap really hits the fan. That will be interesting. Will everyone be posting "ABT!" in four years like they were posting ABH!! last election? We will see.

I think this issue has proven more than that, namely that Trudeau is a giant hypocrite. Which should be a surprise to no one.I think that you are the last person on these board to be calling anyone out for being a hypocrite. .. due to you calling everyone out for disrespecting harper and making a huge stink about respecting the PM and his office, yet all I see in your post is shiny-pony this sunny family that, entitled brat this. Your **** is old, get new material and try to contribute in a respectful and meaningful way. You have good, legit arguments- but your delivery is dreadful- like a poorman's brian lily. I disagree with you that I am the last person on these boards to be calling anyone out for being a hypocrite, being that Justin Trudeau just proved he is a giant hypocrite. Who cares who calls him out on it, he is one. You just don't have the balls to do it, because your **** is old too. This "material" is brand new. You are just mad that your boy is getting called out, finally And he should be called out, as he made a terrible decision. And you better get used to it. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You can crap on me with stupid comments like this, or you can knuckle down, and accept that you are now on the other side of the fence now. Attack me all you want, but its how it is now. You are playing defense, trying to defend a guy who obviously has no political acumen whatsoever. Embrace it, or shut the hell up.

Randorf shocked at the overturn and disagrees with it.

Anyone else find Randorf referring to Leaf players by their nicknames annoying?